As I posted on Thursday, one of the things the Mueller report did was effectively debunk the entire story of the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between several members of President Trump’s inner circle and a Russian lawyer with ties to the Kremlin. This is the summary from the Mueller report:

On June 9, 2016, senior representatives of the Trump Campaign met in Trump Tower with a Russian attorney expecting to receive derogatory information about Hillary Clinton from the Russian government. The meeting was proposed to Donald Trump Jr. in an email from Robert Goldstone, at the request of his then?client Emin Agalarov, the son of Russian real-estate developer Aras Agalarov. Goldstone relayed to Trump Jr. that the “Crown prosecutor of Russia . . . offered to provide the Trump Campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia” as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Trump Jr. immediately responded that “if it’s what you say I love it,” and arranged the meeting through a series of emails and telephone calls.

Trump Jr. invited campaign chairman Paul Manafort and senior adviser Jared Kushner to attend the meeting, and both attended. Members of the Campaign discussed the meeting before it occurred, and Michael Cohen recalled that Trump Jr. may have told candidate Trump about an upcoming meeting to receive adverse information about Clinton, without linking the meeting to Russia. According to written answers submitted by President Trump, he has no recollection of learning of the meeting at the time, and the Office found no documentary evidence showing that he was made aware of the meeting?or its Russian connection?before it occurred.

The Russian attorney who spoke at the meeting, Natalia Veselnitskaya, had previously worked for the Russian government and maintained a relationship with that government throughout this period of time. She claimed that funds derived from illegal activities in Russia were provided to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats. Trump Jr. requested evidence to support those claims, but Veselnitskaya did not provide such information. She and her associates then turned to a critique of the origins of the Magnitsky Act, a 2012 statute that imposed financial and travel sanctions on Russian officials and that resulted in a retaliatory ban on adoptions of Russian children. Trump Jr. suggested that the issue could be revisited when and if candidate Trump was elected. After the election, Veselnitskaya made additional efforts to follow up on the meeting, but the Trump Transition Team did not engage.

Recently uncovered court documents related to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s time as FBI Director show his lack of anything resembling credibility. The man who is responsible for investigating allegations of Trump/Russia collusion was involved in releasing deceptive statements that helped cover up a Saudi family’s involvement in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that shocked America and helped launch the modern surveillance state.

Mueller led the FBI from September 4, 2001 to September 4, 2013. One week after Mueller assumed his new job, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four airliners, using three of them to destroy the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York and severely damage the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. Nearly 3,000 people lost their lives that day and more than another 6,000 were injured, many of them later dying from their injuries.

Unfortunately for the nation, the RussiaGate fiasco is only half over. There is just too much documented official turpitude on the public record for the authorities to answer for and the institutional damage runs too deep. Act One, the Mueller investigation, was a 22-month circle-jerk of prosecutorial misconduct and media malfeasance.

Act Two will be the circular firing squad of former officials assassinating each other’s character to desperately avoid prosecution.

One day following last Thursday's bombshell Mueller report — or rather we should say the report which ended three years of nonstop 'Russiagate' hysteria with a not-so-dramatic whimper — the Russian embassy in the US issued its own scathing report, calling the collusion conspiracy which Mueller's team sought to uncover "hollow and laughable".

The Russian embassy also said it was "no surprise" that the investigation delivered "no tangible result" in its own massive 120-page study, released online Friday, even the title of which pulled no punches — The Russiagate Hysteria: A Case of Severe Russiaphobia.

The publication blasted a list of "groundless accusations" repeated since Trump's 2016 election, including allegations of Russian election meddling, the Kremlin's supposedly being behind the DNC hack, as well as Trump's working with Russian intelligence.

It concluded in the wake of the Mueller report:

The investigation... didn't show any real evidence to back up claims of Moscow's cyberattacks and attempts to "subvert democracy".

Though Mueller's report failed to deliver on much of what the mainstream hyped over the years, it did point to efforts of Russian "interference" in US elections and alleged that Russian military intelligence was complicit in “hacking” the DNC.

"An obvious conclusion is reached – there was no collusion" the English language Russian report asserts.

After three years, more than 8,000 publications in just four main outlets (Washington Post, New York Times, CNN and MSNBC), endless congressional inquiries, 22 months of the work of Robert Mueller that cost taxpayers an estimated $32 million, more than 2,800 subpoenas, 500 witnesses interrogated, and as many search warrants, an obvious conclusion is reached – there was no collusion.

The report also outlines multiple instances where Moscow had "fruitlessly" asked Washington to provide "hard proof" of the allegations, even going so far to offer cooperation in any investigation, but “the US refused every single time.”

During the entirety of the ordeal, the embassy report finds, “All this time, Russia pointed to the obvious made-up nature of these insinuations.”

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov ripped continued lack of US cooperation related to already agreed upon US-Russia initiatives to foster US-Russian economic and business ties.

. . . In the aftermath the embassy called for the US and Moscow to “join efforts to repair the damage to bilateral relations,” and further expressed hope that the "end of the Mueller saga would contribute to further dispelling the smoke and mirrors on this topic."

Voters think Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report is unlikely to help congressional Democrats impeach President Trump, but they expect reporters to try to hurt the president with it if they can.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 58% of Likely U.S. Voters say the findings in the Mueller report are unlikely to lead to Trump’s impeachment, with 33% who say it’s Not At All Likely. Thirty-three percent (33%) disagree and say the report is likely to help impeach the president, but that includes only 14% who feel it’s Very Likely.

Justice Department officials said Tuesday that they were taken aback by the tone of Mueller’s letter and that it came as a surprise to them that he had such concerns. Until they received the letter, they believed Mueller was in agreement with them on the process of reviewing the report and redacting certain types of information, a process that took several weeks. Barr has testified to Congress previously that Mueller declined the opportunity to review his four-page memo to lawmakers that distilled the essence of the special counsel’s findings.

In his letter to Barr, Mueller wrote that the redaction process “need not delay release of the enclosed materials. Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation.”

Barr is scheduled to appear Wednesday morning before the Senate Judiciary Committee — a much-anticipated public confrontation between the nation’s top law enforcement official and Democratic lawmakers, where he is likely to be questioned at length about his interactions with Mueller.

A day after Mueller sent his letter to Barr, the two men spoke by phone for about 15 minutes, according to law enforcement officials.

In that call, Mueller said he was concerned that media coverage of the obstruction investigation was misguided and creating public misunderstandings about the office’s work, according to Justice Department officials. Mueller did not express similar concerns about the public discussion of the investigation of Russia’s election interference, the officials said. Barr has testified previously he did not know whether Mueller supported his conclusion on obstruction.

When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.

In their call, Barr also took issue with Mueller calling his memo a “summary,” saying he had never intended to summarize the voluminous report, but instead provide an account of its top conclusions, officials said.

Justice Department officials said that, in some ways, the phone conversation was more cordial than the letter that preceded it, but that the two men did express some differences of opinion about how to proceed.

Barr said he did not want to put out pieces of the report, but rather issue the document all at once with redactions, and that he didn’t want to change course, according to officials.

===

SEE: Media are the real Pot-stirrers.

(They need to be broken up, and nearly everyone who works their Fired & or investigated.)

The Clintons and the Clinton Foundation received millions from the Russians in return for the sale of 20% of US uranium while Hillary was Secretary of State in the Obama Administration. The Russians knew that they could use this against Hillary and that she could be easily bribed for a few million dollars. The Russians knew Hillary posed no threat to them.

The far left Washington Post stated that the Mueller report shows how the Russians hacked the DNC and Podesta’s emails and then transferred them to WikiLeaks –

Mueller’s indictments against a number of alleged Russian intelligence agents details how they accessed the Democratic National Committee network and Podesta’s email account (among other targets) and transferred the data to WikiLeaks. There, the stolen material became a central component of the election coverage for much of the last month.

There is no evidence to date to support the claim that the Russians gave the DNC or Podesta emails to WikiLeaks.

It is absolutely and positively impossible that a $100,000 spend in Facebook ads could reach 126 million Americans. In addition, this amount of advertising dollars is minuscule.

In sharing that the Mueller investigation has been far more destructive to our country than Russia, President Trump’s son in law Jared Kushner, who worked the campaign said that the Trump campaign spent $160,000 on Facebook ads every three hours during the election cycle –

5. The crime collusion is really conspiracy:

Gregg Jarrett from FOX News discussed the crime of collusion in October 2017. In his post Jarrett makes many statements that are almost shocking, but none more than the fact that the entire investigation is lawless. Jarrett states the following about the recent charges reported in the Russia collusion story –

George Papadopoulos pled guilty to a single charge of making a false statement to the FBI. He was not charged with so-called “collusion” because no such crime exists in American statutory law, except in anti-trust matters. It has no application to elections and political campaigns.

It is not a crime to talk to a Russian. Not that the media would ever understand that. They have never managed to point to a single statute that makes “colluding” with a foreign government in a political campaign a crime, likely because it does not exist in the criminal codes.

Mueller had to redefine the crime collusion to conspiracy in order to carry out his investigation and thought it was no big deal to do so.

6. The President could be indicted on obstruction charges for actions he is constitutionally provided:

This is also not the case. Mueller dedicated 20 pages in the report to the topic of obstruction. Mueller and gang argued a much broader definition of obstruction per the law than what the law states.

At the March 5 meeting, Mueller indicated that he and his team of more than a dozen prosecutors would not bring charges against the president for obstruction – but they wouldn’t exonerate him.

“We were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction, and we asked them a lot on the reasoning behind this and the basis for this,” Barr testified. “We did not understand exactly why the special counsel was not reaching a decision, and when we pressed him on it, he said that his team was still formulating the explanation.”

8. The dossier was not important or necessary to mention in the report:

Mueller and gang did not find it beneficial or important to identify the Steele dossier in its report. This is questionable –

The infamous Steele dossier, which served as the FBI’s roadmap to its investigation into Trump campaign collusion, is barely mentioned in the special counsel’s report, released on Thursday.

The word “dossier” doesn’t appear at all in the partially redacted report. Fusion GPS, the firm that hired Steele on behalf of the Clinton campaign, is also not discussed. And Christopher Steele, a former British spy who wrote the dossier, is mentioned by name only 14 times in the 448-page document.

This was the incriminating document that was used over and over to spy on candidate and President Trump and it is basically omitted by the Mueller gang in its report.

9. It was necessary to include 400 pages of garbage and attacks on President Trump in the junk report:

The Mueller gang decided to release over 400 pages of filth in their final efforts to conclude the coup that they attempted against candidate and then President Trump. The report includes two sections and is filled with all sorts of random disgusting comments about the President. It includes hit pieces on innocent individuals which are redacted. It provides a summary of possible acts of obstruction by the President, yet it never recommended the President for indictment on any obstruction related crimes.

This report could have and should have been concluded in a couple simple and straightforward pages. The Mueller team set a terrible precedent for investigators to create a “National Enquirer” type of report on those being investigated. Shame on the Mueller gang for such a seedy and disgusting report full of blatantly offensive information about the President. This wasn’t a professional report, it was a tabloid hit piece.

10. Joseph Mifsud is a Russian spy who interacted with the Trump team –

As noted by Rep. Devin Nunes last night, the Mueller report states that an individual by the name of Joseph Mifsud is a Russian spy. The problem with this is that he is not as explained by Nunes –

In spite of all these lies, the Democrats and their media were very upset that Americans didn’t buy the contents of the Mueller report.

Mueller... Yet another LIE!

THIS IS DEVASTATING NEWS FOR ROBERT MUELLER AND THE DEMOCRATS ON THE SPECIAL COUNSEL — who lied in their report on their operative Joseph Mifsud who was NOT a Russian operative as the Mueller report claimed he was.

Barr probably didn’t expect to become a major figure in the Russia story. He had nothing to do with it. As far as we know, Barr never met with secret agents in Prague. He never texted Vladimir Putin on his blackberry. He never managed a Macedonian content farm. If Barr betrayed his country for a sack or rubles and a case of vodka, nobody has ever proved it. But it doesn’t matter. The Russia story cannot die. CNN, The Washington Post, and the Democratic Party have too much invested in it.

The fact it’s been proved a hoax is irrelevant to them. Bill Barr is a handy way to keep the Russia in the news. Watch today’s talking point in action. Somewhere in the basement of the DNC, some a messaging consultant has decided that “credibility” is the most effective line of attack:

George Orwell would have been in stitches Wednesday watching Attorney General William Barr and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee spar on Russia-gate. The hearing had the hallmarks of the intentionally or naively blind leading the blind with political shamelessness.

From time to time the discussion turned to the absence of a legal “predicate” to investigate President Donald Trump for colluding with Russia. That is, of course, important; and we can expect to hear a lot more about that in coming months.

More important: what remains unacknowledged is the absence of an evidence-based major premise that should have been in place to anchor the rhetoric and accusations about Russia-gate over the past three years. With a lack of evidence sufficient to support a major premise, any syllogism falls of its own weight.

Russiagate was a lie from inception to its agonizingly slow death, as of the end of last week; the American people do not like to be lied to.

For all those players who believed that the Dementocrats were so clever, to have come up with this, a word of caution; Russiagate is about to explode like a bad trick cigar.

And when that happens, there is no one the Democrats can run in 2020 who will be able to save it from another massive route.

15 Questions Robert Mueller Must Answer

(Mueller's report looks like an exaggerated Smear-campaign without charges)

By Government Slaves on 05/05/2019

Here’s some of what he should be asked.

1) You didn’t charge President Donald Trump with “collusion,” obstruction, or any other new crime. Tell us why. If the answer is “the evidence did not support it,” please say so.

2) Your Report did not refer any crimes to Congress, the SDNY, or anyone else. Again, tell us why. If the answer is “the evidence did not support it,” please say so again.

3) Despite making no specific referrals, the Report does state, “The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of the office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.” Why did you include such a restating of a known fact? Many have read that line to mean you could not indict a sitting president and so you wanted to leave a clue to Congress. Yet you could have just spelled it out—”this is beyond my and the attorney general’s constitutional roles and must/can only be resolved by Congress.” Why didn’t you?

4) Similarly, many believe they see clues (a footnote looms as the grassy knoll of your work) that the only reason you did not indict Trump was because of Department of Justice and Office of Legal Counsel guidance against indicting a sitting president. Absent that, would you have indicted? If so, why didn’t you say so unambiguously and trigger what would be the obvious next steps?

5) When did you conclude there was no collusion, conspiracy, or coordination between Trump and the Russians such that you would make no indictments? You must have closed at least some of the subplots—the Trump Tower meeting, the Moscow Hotel project—months ago. Did you consider announcing key findings as they occurred? You were clearly aware that there was inaccurate reporting, damaging to the public trust. Yet you allowed that to happen. Why?

6) But before you answer that question, answer this one. You made a pre-Report public statement saying Buzzfeed’s story that claimed Trump ordered Michael Cohen to lie to Congress was false. You restated that in the Report, where you also mentioned that you privately told Jeff Sessions’ lawyer in March 2018 that Sessions would not be charged. Since your work confirmed that nearly all bombshell reporting on Russiagate was wrong (Cohen was never in Prague, nothing criminal happened in the Seychelles, and so on), why was it only that single instance that caused you to speak out publicly? And as with Sessions, did you privately inform any others prior to the release of the Report that they would not be charged? What standard did you apply to those decisions?

7) A cardinal rule for prosecutors is to not publicize negative information that does not lead them to indict someone—”the decision does the talking.” James Comey was criticized for doing this to Hillary Clinton during the campaign. Yet most of your Report’s Volume II is just that, descriptions of actions by Trump that contain elements of obstruction but that you ultimately did not charge. Why did you include this information so prominently? Some say it was because you wanted to draw a “road map” for impeachment. Why didn’t you just say that? You had no reason to speak in riddles.

😎 There is a lot of lying documented in the Report. But you seemed to only charge people with perjury (traps) early in your investigation. Was that aimed more at pressuring them to “flip” than at justice per se? Is one of the reasons several of the people in the Report who lied did not get charged with perjury later in the investigation because by then you knew they had nothing to flip on?

During a Sunday interview on New York AM 970 radio’s “The Cats Roundtable,” Rep. Peter King (R-NY) slammed FBI special counsel Robert Mueller for how he handled the almost two-year investigation into alleged collusion between President Donald Trump and Russia in the 2016 presidential election.

King said it “couldn’t have taken Bob Mueller that long” to find out if there was collusion.

“The reports we get are that they knew a year ago there was no collusion. Well, didn’t [Mueller] have an obligation to tell the president of the United States that? To let the world know? The president has gone off to negotiate with Kim Jong-un. He is involved, obviously, in very sensitive negotiations all the time in the Middle East,” King told host John Catsimatidis.

I’m in my 30th year of covering national news and I’ve learned a hard truth about the federal government under numerous administrations. It’s a culture where truth-telling is frowned upon; coverup is rewarded and encouraged.

That helps answer a question many have recently asked about the FBI and our intelligence community: Why haven’t more whistleblowers come forward?

Several months ago, an FBI source told me that numerous whistleblowers had gone to members of Congress with information about the FBI and the Trump-Russia scandal, only to have congressional leaders turn their names over to the Department of Justice. True or not, this was the word on the street, and it had a chilling impact on other would-be whistleblowers.

The fact is, insiders know that things rarely turn out well for the whistleblowers. They and their families are targeted, attacked and smeared. They lose their jobs or chance to advance. Their health suffers. Their personal lives fall apart.

Meantime, they look over their shoulders and see that their truth-telling changed nothing. The guilty parties usually stay in their cushy jobs or are allowed to quietly retire with full benefits. Sometimes they’re promoted.

So it’s no surprise that, even though I believe the federal government is populated with mostly good people, they tend to keep their mouths shut and go along. After all, why come forward if your actions aren’t going to fix anything and the only result will be that your life is ruined?

There’s a simple yet dramatic way to change this longstanding culture, one that everyone should be able to get behind: A new whistleblower amnesty program.

It could start with the Department of Justice and intelligence community. Attorney General William Barr could set it up quickly, before the establishment has time to mount a full-force lobbying campaign to stop it. Here are two potential aspects:

Amnesty period

Establish a 60-day amnesty period of time for anyone in the intel community to come forward and admit their own wrongdoing or blow the whistle on others.

Offer anonymity, legal representation and job security for the whistleblowers. Any whistleblowers whose names become known would fall under a new group of protected federal employees with independent overseers ensuring they do not suffer retaliation. In the alternative, a mutually beneficial separation could be negotiated.

Someone confessing to his or her own wrongdoing generally would be guaranteed immunity from administrative punishment or prosecution. The seriousness of the offense or crime would be weighed against factors, such as the information he or she provides about broader wrongdoing, and a mutually beneficial resolution for the individual and government would be negotiated.

. . .For those who believe there is little wrongdoing and corruption inside the Department of Justice and our intelligence communities, this process would be speedy and nimble.

However, if there are more problems than we think, we should be prepared for a giant purge. If the idea works, it could become a model for rooting out problems within all federal agencies.

Such a process would change the longstanding federal culture that overlooks or encourages corruption, and lead to cleaner, more effective governing.

Logically, there should be few legitimate objections. All should be able to get behind a relatively simple plan to root out corruption and wrongdoing in our federal agencies.

On the DNC leak, Mueller started with the prejudice that it was “the Russians” and he deliberately and systematically excluded from evidence anything that contradicted that view.

Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.